Then again you must admit the american goverment dont seem to see the difference between the two

I think the USG should be eradicated, they are nothing more than thieves, extortionists, and murderers! I'm just a person who backs up the founding
documents ( Constitution in this case ), where the law of the land supersedes personal opinion. That way there is no labels, or judgments passed on
by a persons thoughts or views.

Well, no its not hard to entertain? I understand you don't agree with Blair or Bush for that matter. Hell, I don't think we should have gone to
war either, but what we " think" and what we can "prove" are on two completely different cases. I'm not trying to be funny, I'm trying to
inquire on what evidence does anyone have that would conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that any crime was committed ....PERIOD.

If you can't submit proof, answer this question then? Is a person guilty regardless of the crime without evidence to support the claim? Your answer
will be the basis on whether to take any of your comments seriously.

Obviously its all a matter of oppinion,.. therefore my original statement was proven
correct and you proved yourself wrong by stating that an oppinion can be an obvious fact deliberated over by two poeple, Therefore and i conclude
there is no point in continuing this conversation on why blair may/may not be a war criminal because theres no way of proving either of us correct
other than through the higher belief in our own oppinions. Aristotle would be proud ~

When Tony Blair and George Bush decided to abandon the United Nations and launch their aggressive war against Iraq in March, 2003 they committed
themselves to the most serious of all breaches of International law, “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that
it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”, as defined by the prosecutors at Nuremberg following the defeat of the Nazis.
When someone breaches law it = Crime.
Crime (krm)
n.
1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime to squander our country's natural resources.

"The claim came after two senior Foreign Office lawyers, Sir Michael Wood and Elizabeth Wilmshurst, told the Iraq inquiry the invasion was against
international law and amounted to a “crime of aggression"

I didn't ask if you could use a dictionary online to define words. But what ever makes you feel better.
But with that said, under the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 8 states:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The above is US Law, which prevents any US president of any " criminal " allegations. Which prevents any unwarranted prosecution with out the right
to " due process".
Now since The British Constitution is unwritten in one single document, unlike the constitution in America or the proposed European Constitution, it
is referred to as an uncodified constitution. Your Supporters of your constitution believe that the current way allows for flexibility and change to
occur without too many problems.

Alas, we are right back to the lack of substantiated evidence for your argument to hold merit.

But then again you have you to prove that he isnt, No president or ruler should be protected/hidden by words, The right to free speech will reign, and
it is, You just have to look at all the pictures of protesters that agree with me you in some way suggest through your questioning that im the only
one.
Convince them, The news article i posted last which you clearly were unable to read shows that there is a rock solid case against him, Stop it now
with the oppinions, oppinions are what keep the world broken,

Originally posted by TedHodgson
But then again you have you to prove that he isnt, No president or ruler should be protected/hidden by words, The right to free speech will reign, and
it is, You just have to look at all the pictures of protesters that agree with me you in some way suggest through your questioning that im the only
one.
Convince them, The news article i posted last which you clearly were unable to read shows that there is a rock solid case against him, Stop it now
with the oppinions, oppinions are what keep the world broken,

Your first comment is very true! In a court atmosphere one must be proven he isnt guilty of alleged crimes. So I agree with you there.
Your other comment about pictures of protesters and what not, hold no valid bearing on criminal charges. Just because a person is protesting
something, doesn't make him/her right?
You stated that opinions keep there world broken, not true. Wouldn't the very lack of free speech only suggest a society in which we all are
submissive?

Free speech works when poeple find a common oppinion/common ground on which thier oppinions are based, but if poeple truly thought for themselves
without influence, chances are nobody would find common ground to speak with each other about without an argument forming.
Dont get me wrong im all up for free speech and voicing yourself against oppression, But there is allways a different view that poeple will have that
doesnt necceserilly work with your oppinions on the subject and that should be respected and taken into account

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.